get_resource_group

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but the description doesn't confirm this, doesn't state what 'details' are included in the response, and doesn't mention error behavior for invalid IDs or permission requirements. The behavioral profile is left entirely to inference.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource stated immediately and zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool, though the brevity reflects minimal content rather than rich, distilled information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter get tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent cannot anticipate the return structure, confirm read-only safety, or understand how this tool relates to list_resource_groups. These gaps leave the definition barely adequate for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both account_id and group_id documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it doesn't clarify the relationship between the two parameters or that account_id scopes the group lookup, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get details of an IAM resource group' states a specific verb (get) and resource type (IAM resource group), clearly conveying single-entity retrieval. The 'IAM' qualifier and 'get' vs 'list' verb pattern help distinguish it from the sibling 'list_resource_groups', though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'list_resource_groups' exists for enumeration, and 'get_permission_group' is a similar get-by-ID pattern, but nothing in the description helps an agent choose among them. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.